The 'Soros Strategy' Is Deliberately Packing Local Courts With Ideologically Extreme Judges Who Cause Harm
Source: Paula Baker and Donald T. Critchlow. "How Socialist Democrats Fill Local Courts With Woke Judges." September 23, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The authors argue that George Soros-linked Democratic groups have quietly turned their attention from electing progressive prosecutors to electing progressive judges in local courts, using organized campaigns and heavy funding. They claim these judges have caused real problems—like releasing dangerous suspects—and warn this is part of a long-term strategic effort to seize control of the judicial system that Americans should be alarmed about and resist.
Conclusion
Socialist Democrats, using a coordinated 'Soros strategy' of dark money and organized slates, are deliberately capturing local judicial seats with DSA-aligned 'woke' judges, constituting a dangerous judicial revolution that must be countered.
Premises
- Democratic-aligned dark money networks (led by Soros-connected groups) have shifted from funding crime-friendly DA races to funding low-level judicial races, using the same playbook.
- A report from the Center for American Institutions found that Democratic-aligned nonprofit networks funding these races are larger and more sophisticated than anything on the Republican side.
- DSA and allied organizations (e.g., La Defensa in LA, the 'Slate of Eight' in Pittsburgh) organize coordinated slates of public defenders and civil rights lawyers to run for judgeships, and have won multiple seats in Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Houston, and elsewhere.
- Several DSA-backed judges (Erika Ballou, Mik Pappas, Xander Orenstein, Franklin Bynum) engaged in controversial rulings, misconduct, or ethical violations tied to their ideological opposition to cash bail, pre-trial detention, and strict criminal enforcement.
- These judges' decisions led to concrete harms, including reduced eviction rates seen as harmful to landlords, release of dangerous defendants who went on to commit violent crimes, and formal disciplinary or impeachment actions.
- Activists and sympathetic commentators describe this as a deliberate 'long game' to build lasting power on the bench, indicating strategic intent rather than isolated incidents.
Assumptions
- Judicial philosophies favoring criminal justice reform (opposition to cash bail, pre-trial detention) are inherently harmful or illegitimate rather than legitimate policy disagreements.
- Coordinated political organizing and fundraising for judicial candidates is uniquely illegitimate when done by left-leaning groups, as opposed to a normal feature of electoral democracy practiced by both parties.
- The individual misconduct or controversial decisions of a handful of judges (out of many elected nationwide) are representative of a broader systemic 'revolution' rather than isolated cases.
- Judges who prioritize defendants' rights or alternatives to incarceration are presumed to be ideologically motivated 'woke' actors rather than judges interpreting law or exercising legitimate discretion.
- Electoral success in local judicial races constitutes 'capture' or 'takeover' rather than legitimate democratic outcomes reflecting voter preferences in those jurisdictions.